The Internal Critic and Intersectionality: Who's Looking Out For the Minority Right?

Ampersand's latest post argues that there is a material difference between blacks accusing other blacks of being a "race traitor," and whites doing it. Specifically, he argues:

I don't find Blacks using the term "race traitor" objectionable the way I'd find the same term used by whites (liberal or not) objectionable. It's a little like when Chris Rock uses the word "nigger." I don't think it's acceptable for whites to say "nigger," by and large. But at the same time, it's not my place, as a white guy, to police the language Blacks use when having debates about Black identity politics within the Black community. That's none of my business. [...] Context - that is, what race the speaker is - does matter. It's clear that when blacks use the word "nigger" or its derivatives, they're not using it in the anti-black way it's typically been used by white racists. Similarly, the analogy between right-wing racists who have used "race traitor" (for whites who favored civil rights), and anti-racist Blacks who use the same term, doesn't hold much water.

Before I begin, I'd like to note that I was way too casual in the whole "race traitor" deal. It was a heated statement, and I regret it. More embarrassingly, from my perspective, is that the "book by two Georgetown Law Professors" is one I've actually been meaning to read, and both the authors (Mari J. Matsuda and Charles Lawrence III) are writers I admire and consider myself to be heavily influenced be. Also, I agree that context matters, and that there is a qualitative difference between white racists using phrases like "race traitor" and the same sort of claim being made by black leftists to other blacks. My argument thus should not be construed that both are equally objectionable, just that both are, indeed objectionable at all. That being said, I disagree with Ampersand that blacks calling other blacks "race traitor" is akin to the use of the n-word by blacks. The reason is simple--and it has everything to do with the context of use. Like Amp, I may find the use of this word by anyone distasteful. However, black people don't use it in a context designed to degrade or isolate the subject of its use (whereas any white usage necessarily carries with it the baggage of past racism). By contrast, "race traitor" is an epithet designed to intimidate, the purpose is to assault minorities who aren't displaying the proper "solidarity" and the intent is to strip them of their blackness--if you're not with me, you're not black. I briefly overviewed the theory of intersectionality in a previous post, but it's worth running through again:

[Intersectionality argues] that the experience of a double minority is different than the sum of the two minority groups she belongs. For example, the status of a Black Woman is not merely Woman + Black. Similarly, the status of a female minority conservative is not just Female + Minority + Conservative. The simplest reason why this is so is because whereas becoming a conservative by itself means joining a relatively popular and broad group, becoming a minority conservative means being subjected to endless taunts of being an "Uncle Tom" or traitor, accusations (and occasionally, true moments) of being "used" by majority peers, and other hardships. In other words, while my (White) life would not be significantly changed by switching my political affiliation, for a minority, this switch comes with a lot of baggage. Because the tropes associated with "conservative" are contingent upon one's other identities, one can't simply atomize conservatism (or any other identity) and examine independently of the rest.

Ampersand views this entire spat as intramural, blacks arguing amongst themselves about what it means to oppose racism. To me, this obscures the divisions in power relations that exist within the black community. Since the black left is far more powerful than the black right, the effect of them using this term is to leverage the influence they have over anti-racism discourse to suppress views they don't like. This is akin to when minorities began to criticize the fact that civil rights scholarship was nearly all-white (and didn't cite to any emerging minority writers). See Richard Delgado, The Imperial Scholar: Reflections on Civil Rights Literature, 132 U. Pa. L. Rev. 561 (1984). The terminology used by black leftists is not neutral debate, it is a deliberate attempt to link black conservatives to an ideology inherently opposed to black people. It's like a Jew calling another Jew a Nazi--irrespective of the validity of the criticism itself, the term is offensive because of the particular tropes and tenors it carries in the Jewish experience. Acting as if this was just folks debating ("free speech"?) blinds us to the realities of power and forces us to pretend that Blacks do all agree on the terms and conditions regarding opposition to racism--and moreover, we have to play that role by accepting the very controversy that is under dispute--that black leftists are "right" in how they frame the racism debate and the conservatives are "wrong." This does not address the second part of Ampersand's critique--that even if we (white liberals) think that the term is wrong, it's none of our business. As I wrote in my last post, my Jewish background places me deeply opposed to the "it's not our problem" school of thought. The history of genocide is replete with examples of tyrants who knew that if they just kept their actions an internal affair, they could escape international notice and condemnation of even the most brutal of crimes. Within this paradigm, Hitler's crime was not that he slaughtered millions of Jews, it's that he invaded Poland (which of course made it "everybody's problem"). Had he just concentrated on the Jews in his own border (like Turkey with Armenians, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, etc.), he'd have been home free. I reject this logic. Obviously there is value to letting groups solve their own problems, just as there is value in respecting national sovereignty. But this is predicated on the notion that all members of the group in question stand on roughly equal footing, and that the object under consideration is not whether or not to expel a disempowered sub-sect. Because I believe the position of black conservatives does not meet either condition, and because I believe that outsiders have obligations, when possible, to rectify even injustices that aren't within their own community, I register my disagreement with Ampersand.

If Hitler Hadn't Invaded Poland, Would Anybody Care?

In Their Silence They Cry Out
--Cicero

One of the attorneys at my law firm knows a woman who grew up in Germany during World War II. She just published a book, and our attorney brought her in to speak about her experiences on the matter. I think about genocide a lot (cheery guy that I am), so this once again spurred my mind to reflect on how America reacts to mass murder.

It occurred to me that the Holocaust is really rather unique amongst genocides in the psychic impact it has on the world. Several reasons have been given for this: The fact that it was not committed in a spate of ethnic rioting (like, say Rwanda), but was a calmly and deliberately planned massacre spanning around a decade; the sheer universality of it, how it expressly targeted every Jew on the planet for elimination; the fact that the "image" of the victim was white and middle class (as opposed to an ethnic minority we can effectively divorce from our own experience), etc. etc..

But it occurs to me that the biggest distinguishing factor between the Holocaust and other genocides is that we experienced it first hand, albeit as a third party. US and Russian troops were the ones that liberated the concentration camps. Thousands of young men saw first hand the horror that had been inflicted upon the Jews--this helped lead to the moral outrage that created Nuremberg and "never again."

But what if none of that had happened? What if Hitler had never invaded Poland at all, but had just quietly sat within his borders and carried out an extermination there?

It's relatively clear that Hitler's pathological hatred of Jews and his megalomaniacal desire to rule the world are intertwine, but also separable. The establishment of the first concentration camp (Dachau) predates any aggressive actions by Germany by several years, as do many of the early anti-Semitic laws, moreover, Hitler consistently acted to kill as many Jews as possible even when it harmed the war effort (e.g., using trains needed to ferry supplies to the front to transport Jews to death camps instead). So it's no answer to say that absent the war, Hitler wouldn't have engaged in genocide--he probably would have. A smaller scale, to be sure, but the amount of German Jews killed alone approaches 200,000.

Looking at the American reaction to other genocides, we can relatively safely say that our reaction to this hypothetical would have been...very little. From Armenia to Cambodia to Rwanda, genocide that does not immediately affect American interests tends to attract little attention. For whatever reason, the requisite empathy for other persons appears simply absent. Even when there is press coverage as the genocide is on-going (like in Darfur now), we...do...not...care. Sure, we make condemnations. Big deal. Has there been any serious talk of military intervention? Agreement to airlift out refugees and give them asylum within the US? We cry and sigh, and they still die. It's shameful.

Examining how America acted even during the real WWII lends credence to this hypothesis. America refused to let in Jewish refugees (recall the plight of the S.S. St. Louis), nor did they directly condemn the horrors perpetuated against Jews (Roma, Poles, and others as well) specifically (making only vague mention to wartime excesses). Indeed, even granting wartime constraints, the US response to the Holocaust (which we did know about) was anemic--even before we entered the war at all. This is not to absolve the rest of the world--with a few exceptions (Singapore, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden come to mind)--all failed in this basic test of human dignity. But being an American blog with mostly American readers, this should require a hard look at ourselves.

The vast majority of abuses in the world have absolutely nothing to do with us. We can ignore them, and nothing bad will happen to us. The screams of the raped, mutilated and murder don't fall upon deaf ears, they don't even reach the ears at all (being drowned out by Michael Jackson and the latest Celeb hookup). In fact, there is only one way these atrocities have anything to do with us:

America has the power to stop them.

If we through our collective weight in the global system in a complete and absolute opposition to genocide, we could make a difference. If America's leaders knew their citizens would stand by and make the sacrifice so that others might live, we could make a difference. It isn't necessarily throwing troops into every nation on the planet who doesn't meet ideal human rights standards. It's about using our tremendous leverage in the global community to force other nations to act with the basic decency and humanity that anybody can expect.

It's difficult, because it involves looking out for number two, at no tangible benefit to number one.

In prior posts, I've been talking a lot about standpoint theory and how perspective informs analysis. For example, the author, the woman who was a German child during World War II, at one point warned us that we must be wary of those who use propaganda and drew a parallel to the "illegal and unjust" war that America is currently engaged in. It's been noted that in the wake of the Holocaust, Germany has a severe aversion to the use of armed force in any situation--it always sees it's own shadow--and this was a perfect manifestation of that. At the same time, I marveled at how my own perspective, reflecting on the same series of events but informed by my Jewishness, led me to the exact opposite conclusion. I do not fear unrestrained aggression, I fear a world that can not bring itself to care enough for those crying out for its aid. America turned its back on me--I will not turn my back on the next generation of victims. And hence, that's why I supported the war in Iraq--the horror of Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime struck far too close to home. Perhaps we could contain Saddam. So what? All that means is that we can safely ignore him while he slaughters more of his own people. Containment is the vanguard of aversion--a Saddam we don't have to pay attention to is a Saddam whose crimes will continue on and on.

For me, that's an intolerable situation.

Do you have the courage to care?

Murphy's Law in Action

Bad news folks. Just as I start to get a fair stream of hits, my home computer blows its internet router. So blogging may come at a reduced schedule for the next few days (though I'll try to keep up as best I can--right now, I'm on my mom's computer, which is the only one with internet access).

Buried Treasure

This didn't deserve to get lost in the morass of comments:

I just did an informal survey, among some friends of mine (all attorneys ranging from moderate progressive to slightly conservatie to libertarinian/objectivist). All work here in Colorado, drink beers with me occasionally.

I asked each (separately): "Say, do you know and/or like Michelle Malkin?"

Most didn't know her. 9 out of 16 to be exact, had no clue. More liberals knew her than conservatives/libertarians.

Those that did either were vehemently opposed ("she's a racist"), or pretty impress ("good writer").

Then I asked: "What do you know about Michelle Malkin?"

This is where it got uncomfortable, at least for me as a liberal.

The progressive friends, immediatly went into "uncle tom" and, I guess, race conscious "ungrateful," stuff with lots of labeling along the "hypocracy" view. These folks had heard of her from liberal blogs, and there was more than one derogatory comment about her either based on her sex or on her ethnicity. I was actually shocked and surprised at the "friend" (i'm reevaluating this relationship) who called her the "neocon's pocket gook whore." This is a gay man, and given the crap that the GLBT community has to deal with in terms of prejudice, I was literally sitting there with my jaw on my lap. He saw my surprise and said something to the effect of: Listen, she's so 'bad' that nothing is off limits with her.

That offended me and, as I see it on display EVERWHERE in the blogosphere right now, it still offends me as a liberal.

It offends me a lot.

Interestingly, when I asked the more libertarian/conservative guys and gal who knew of Malkin what they knew about her or how they heard of her, all three said they had been forwarded something or read a link sometime back in 2002 or 2003. I asked if they knew she was fillipino, and two of the three said "Malkin?" They didn't know. I should add that none of my friends are as "net" focused for news and commentary as I am, but it did surprise me that two of the "fans" had no idea about that. The other one (the woman) said "yeah, I guess I heard that..."

SO I asked her: "Do you think her writing is really that good, or does she get 'traction' out of being able to say things with a moral authority arising out of her sex and race that other conservates can't." She said she didn't think so, because she knew for sure that she liked Malkin and her writing BEFORE she knew her ancestry. "She writes well," was my friend's overall summary.

Suffice it to say that I'm upset by the results of my little informal poll over the last couple days. To be sure, the plural of "anecdote" is NOT evidence, but my informal inquiries have revealed that only the progressives seem to be viewing everything Malkin does through the lense of her sex and ancestry. The conservaties who even knew who she was liked her writing.

And I do think I know these folks well enough that my take on their comments is accurate (they weren't playing dumb, so to speak).

That the two progressives, including one man I would have expected better from given the bigotry he has HIMSELF had to deal with, somehow found so much loathing for Malkin that even "off limits" issues weren't off limits in terms of her.

And we as progressives need to fix that. We need to fix it really bad, because we don't "own" women or minorities, and if we keep treating them as defacto proxies who will be disowned and denigrated for straying from the "hivemind," we will surely alienate our chances of ever hoping to retain their participation in the progressive sphere.

The Rightwing Split in a Nutshell

Balloon Juice brings us a disgusting rant by Joe Farah attacking John Roberts for aiding "reprehensible" clients (IE, homosexuals in Romer v. Evans. Both Bill Quick and Nick Danger move to quickly disassociate. Danger's comments are best:

Reprehensible clients? Please, Joe, I don't need this. There may well be reprehensible causes. There are probably even reprehensible laws. But can we please leave the clients, personally, out of it?

While I'm not thrilled about it, I do understand why the ACLU defends the right of Nazis and Klansters to march in the streets. Certainly either of those groups would make most people's list of things reprehensible. And yet we also understand that if those people are made to shut up, the rest of us are not far behind. But here comes Joe Farah to tell us that some clients are so reprehensible that the honorable thing to do is resign before touching them with a ten-foot pole; that or excuse oneself from the situation on "principled, moral grounds."

Perhaps Farah thinks that the law at issue in Romer (specifically, a constitutional amendment that prohibited laws protected homosexuals, and only homosexuals, from discrimination) was perfectly okay. But that wasn't what his rhetoric pointed to. It was the clients whom he should have refused to associate with. In other words, the dirty gays.

Farah says what groups like the FRC only think--any association or positive portrayal of homosexuals is a betrayal. Indeed, except for their conclusions, the FRC and Farah reacted remarkably similarly to news of Roberts' actions. Both panicked to start, and implied that support for homosexual activists would be a death knell for their support. The FRC just happened to decide Roberts didn't do enough to make him a gay-lover.

The distinction between the sensible right and the extreme right is that for the latter, even the barest hint of contact with the "enemy" is an anathema. When its walking parodies like Bill O'Reilly, we can just laugh. But this issue is no joke--it's a substantial portion of Americans united in a hateful ideology premised around the subordination of homosexuals and any who seek to affirm their dignity.

Conservative For A Day

I'm tired. Defending minority conservatives has drained a lot out of me. It's a thankless job, for obvious reasons. Liberals aren't happy because they don't like being interrupted while flogging an easy target. Conservatives aren't happy because my argument essentially boils down to "her being an idiot is enough--no need to bring her race or sex into it." And moderates are so fed up with the partisan fireballing that they don't pay attention anyway.

It's interesting, though, how things get projected onto you when step out from the pack. In the comments on this post, for example, I was continually described by some folks (but, as I was reminded a post too late, not all as I might have implied) as a "conservative," a man who opposes Affirmative Action, and someone who wanted to see Malkin "shielded from criticism." Part of this I brought onto myself. In the midst of a very frustrated period I wrote, in classic conservative fashion, "apparently Liberals think that being Filipino is 'close enough' to Japanese that she's a race traitor." In anger, I resorted to a crude statement and was rightly called on it. I still think that the underlying sentiment of how minority conservatives were being treated in thread was correct (see here for the elaborated version in the thread). Nevertheless, I certainly didn't help my own cause by that comment. And since I value thoughtful and engaging discussion over trite polemics and flames, I'm upset with myself for stepping out of that model.

That being said, however, it was still amazing how despite my near constant avocation that I dislike Malkin, find her views detestable, and am an overall liberal, it was still continuously implied that I was conservative. It was a perfect example of the "your with us or against us" mentality I deplore in President Bush. I believe it was Erving Goffman, an expert on stigma and author of "Stigma: Notes on a Spoiled Identity," who noted that those who defend an unpopular minority or group often will be assumed to be part of that group. Hence, a gay rights activist is assumed to be gay, or someone opposing anti-Semitism is told to be Jewish. In this context, I was taking the unpopular (amongst liberals) position of defending a conservative, and so I was assumed to be conservative. My protestations to the contrary fell on deaf ears--after all, my actions proved everything they needed to know. Even though I tried to clearly separate the illegitimate sexist assault on Malkin from the very legitimate ideological critique, my opposition to the former was prima facia evidence of opposition to the latter. If explicit disclaimers of a particular intent is not enough to persuade an opponent of the content of one's advocacy, what is? And heaven help you if you don't make everything explicit--even having said that I think Malkin's views are detestable, I still had to content with the assertion that I thought the sexist comment directed at her was "worse" than Malkin's defense of Japanese Internment. It isn't, and shouldn't be portrayed as such.

In spite of it all, I still believe that most liberals and most conservatives do not engage in these trite smears of each other. I take solace in the fact that the leader of the dominant Leftist theory in American legal academia (and a personal role model of mine) has not followed the stereotype of shrill partisanship and anti-Republican paranoia.

But talk about a confidence rocker...

Standpoint Theory, The "Voice of Color," and "Uncle Toms": Positioning Conservative Minorities

This post began as an update to "We Are (Are We?) Better Than This", condemning sexist attacks on conservative minority Michelle Malkin. Because of the length of the post and the wide subject matter, I have decided to expand it into its own post. For an overview of the background controversy, see David Bernstein as well as the post under fire itself.

I can't tell what Protein Wisdom thinks of my brief explanation of how one could make a reasonable case linking Malkin's popularity to her ethnicity and sex. To review, the argument runs as follows:

[For example,] a woman who speaks against "feminism" is presumed to be speaking against her "own interests" and thus receives additional weight ("enhanced standing"). Under this view, Malkin's popularity is partially premised on her position as someone conservatives can point to and say: "Look! We're not racist--some minorities agree with us!"--a status that is interwoven with her status as a woman and minority. And one could then extrapolate that if Malkin didn't provide that particular service to conservatives (IE, being a conservative minority woman), she'd be a non-entity.

I gather he isn't a fan of this particular argument, but I can't tell if he thinks I like it.

Again, reserving judgment on whether/how this applies to Ms. Malkin, I'm sympathetic to this sort of argument because I do believe in standpoint theory. That is, I think the position of an actor has relevance to their comments on a particular issue. Minorities have a different perspective on racism than do whites--it is facile to say that we can gather a comprehensive perspective on racial issues only from talking to white folk (which is why I support diversity in academia and elsewhere). Critics of this view claim that we are rejecting "merit" in favor of "identity politics." I don't see how this is so--if merit (with regard to speech, anyway) is defined as "an opinion which breaks new ground, gives us a more nuanced perspective on a existing issue, or otherwise causes the listener to think and analyze in a new or novel way," then the benefit of the "voice of color" (or other minority) is perfectly meritorious. As Lawrence Blum notes in his superb book "I'm Not a Racist, But..." there are plenty of perfectly reasonable cases where race affects one's merit for a position. For example, if a school created a group dedicated to fostering interracial dialogue and understanding, and 19 of its first 20 members were Latino, it would make perfect sense for the school to try and recruit white and black students to join the club, even if they were less qualified in "other" respects. The reasoning is clear--you can't have interracial dialogue without different races. The goal of the club--the measuring rod by which merit stacks up--is completely intertwined with race. No less of a conservative authority than Judge Richard Posner has acknowledged this. In Wittmer v. Peters, 87 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 1996), dealing with affirmative action for underrepresented blacks being hired for "Lieutenant" jobs at a boot camp that seeks to rehabilitate convicts, he wrote the following:

The black lieutenant is needed because the black inmates are believed unlikely to play the correctional game of brutal drill sergeant and brutalized recruit unless there are some blacks in authority at the camp. This is not just speculation, but is backed up by expert evidence that the plaintiffs did not rebut....[The experts] opined that the boot camp in Greene County would not succeed in its mission of pacification and reformation with as white a staff as it would have had if a black male had not been appointed to one of the lieutenant slots. For then a security staff less than 6 percent black (4 out of 71), with no male black supervisor, would be administering a program for a prison population almost 70 percent black....

Judge Posner then upheld the preference given to a black candidate for the lieutenant job as constitutional.

Hence, I do believe that the standpoint of a speaker (including, in areas related to racism and racial issues, their race) is relevant to how we evaluate the speech. However, I am disconcerted at the tendency of some on the left to only trumpet certain stories while deriding others--namely, the opinions of minority conservatives.

Malkin's "story," so to speak, is one of minority conservatism. This is a minority story--especially given intersectionality theory. This posits--correctly in my view--that the experience of a double minority is different than the sum of the two minority groups she belongs. For example, the status of a Black Woman is not merely Woman + Black. Similarly, the status of a female minority conservative is not just Female + Minority + Conservative. The simplest reason why this is so is because whereas becoming a conservative by itself means joining a relatively popular and broad group, becoming a minority conservative means being subjected to endless taunts of being an "Uncle Tom" or traitor, accusations (and occasionally, true moments) of being "used" by majority peers, and other hardships. In other words, while my (White) life would not be significantly changed by switching my political affiliation, for a minority, this switch comes with a lot of baggage. Because the tropes associated with "conservative" are contingent upon one's other identities, one can't simply atomize conservatism (or any other identity) and examine independently of the rest. Hence, Malkin's conservatism has to be examined within the context of her being a minority--it can't just be placed under the generic rubric of "conservatism" and thus be easily dismissed.

This blindness amongst leftists to the ways in which they create the very hostile environments they deplore is what lends a germ of truth to statements like this:

Woe be to the average person who dares say a single word that can be construed as racist or sexist. That's now the sole purview of leftist elites to be employed by them as punishment against women and minorities who dare to think for themselves.

Conservatives find themselves frustrated at the seeming double standard of the Critical "Voice of Color" thesis: where minority speech is privileged and exalted--unless it is by conservative minorities. Liberal minority speech is deemed authentic, conservative minority speech is the result of an "impaired consciousness." Who's being the paternalist now?

To sum it up, I believe two things here. 1) It is probably true that some of the value of some conservative minority views comes from the fact that they are minorities and 2) this is perfectly fine--we need to hear the perspectives of conservative minorities as much as we do any other group. Because I believe the voice of minorities is important, I believe the voice of minority conservatives is important. It's that simple.

We Are (Are We?) Better Than This

I remember once reading Andrew Sullivan on Michelle Malkin. Now, Sullivan is not a fan of Malkin (nor, for that matter, am I). But I distinctly recall him saying that regardless of our disagreements with her, Malkin endures far more than her fair share of racial and sexual epithets thrown at her--and that it is shameful for so-called liberals to indulge in this sort of crude personal assault.

Why bring it up now? Because David Bernstein points me to a "Taxonomy" of Conservative Blogs that engages in yet another one of these smears ("If she didn't have tits, she'd be stuck writing at Townhall.com."). Which, as Bernstein notes, wouldn't be so bad, if the entire left blogosphere didn't appear to be endorsing the post (to be fair, there are exceptions).

Honestly. I don't like the bloggers on this list either (except Volokh. They're cool. And jury's out on Dean's World and Buzzmachine). But the smear style attacks should not be tolerated--and I don't care that "they do it too." In my post on how the far left/right treats centrists, one commentator argued that leftists are more likely than righties to attack their opponents based on sex, race, or sexuality. I noted my skepticism then, and I'm skeptical now, but damn, we're not making a good showing of ourselves here.

We're better than this.

PS: There is a reasonable way to make the case that a conservative blogger's status as a woman or minority does effect her popularity amongst her peers. Blogcritics, for example, talks about Derrick Bell's "Rules of Racial Standing" here. The pertinent rule is:

THIRD RULE:
Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements about racial conditions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The usual exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing. [emphasis added]

In law, this might be seen as an admission against interest. That is, a woman who speaks against "feminism" is presumed to be speaking against her "own interests" and thus receives additional weight ("enhanced standing"). Under this view, Malkin's popularity is partially premised on her position as someone conservatives can point to and say: "Look! We're not racist--some minorities agree with us!"--a status that is interwoven with her status as a woman and minority. And one could then extrapolate that if Malkin didn't provide that particular service to conservatives (IE, being a conservative minority woman), she'd be a non-entity.

That argument is sophisticated, controversial, and debatable (I make no comment on whether or not it is correct as applied to Malkin). It is not, however, conveyed in a crude posting that marks Malkin's success as solely attributable to her "tits." Make the latter argument, but the former should be an anathema to true liberals.

UPDATE: Alas, a Blog joins the "Malkin-bashers defending Malkin" group. We should start a club.

UPDATE 2x: With regard to how we ought view minority conservatives, I have just posted what originally was to be an update to this post but, due to length, became a post of its own. It is entitled "Standpoint Theory, The Voice of Color, and "Uncle Toms": Positioning Conservative Minorities" and I highly encourage you to take a look.

Despite a Valient Effort to Portray it Otherwise, This is a Good Point

After seeing the description and excerpt on the 1754 blog, I expected this article to be a perfect example of frothing western supremacism. Happily, I was pleased to find that it makes a perfectly reasonable point:

The Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty-Years-War, John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre, the terrorist attacks of the Irish Republican Army, the Oklahoma City bombing--these are just a few examples of violence carried out by extremists who found inspiration in their Christian faith.

Jewish radicals have justified violence against Arabs by citing the "holy war" that God commanded Israel to wage against the Canaanites for possession of the Promised Land. As recently as 1994, Baruch Goldstein, a deeply religious Jew, murdered 29 Muslims worshipping in a mosque in Hebron.

The kamikazes of World War II were religiously motivated. And it was members of Aum Shinrikyo, an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism, who released vials of poisonous gas into the Tokyo subway in 1995.

There have been Hindu terrorists (the word "thug" originally referred to those who murdered to honor the Hindu goddess Kali); also Sikh suicide bombers.

So those who think Islam is the only religion that gives rise to extremism and carnage need to think again.

But let's be clear, Islam is not -- as has been repeatedly claimed -- a "religion of peace." Indeed, the idea is absurd, considering that Islam's founding prophet also was a warrior -- among the most successful in history, establishing an empire ranging from Spain to the South Pacific.

Nor did Osama bin Laden "hijack" Islam--any more than Hitler hijacked Germanic culture or Lenin hijacked the Russian ethos. Rather, Hitler and Lenin drew upon the ugliest threads in their nations' fabrics. So, too, has bin Laden invoked Islam's most radically xenophobic doctrines to legitimize a vicious assault against all those who refuse to accept his authority, all those he demonizes as "infidels."
[...]
The point is this: As Christian behavior need not be modeled on Torquemada, as Jews needn't emulate the Zealots, as there is nothing in Shinto or Buddhism to prevent Japan from living in peace with its neighbors, so too Muslims need not embrace an interpretation of their religion that is hateful, barbaric and incompatible with freedom, democracy and human rights.

It is not inevitable that Muslims will, as bin Laden predicts, join him in an apocalyptic clash of civilizations, intended to return the world to the 7th Century as fanatics dream it must have been. There is an alternative to a Muslim war against the Free World: Muslims can join the Free World instead.

Neither Islam nor any other great religion has always been peaceful in the past. But it should not take a prophet to see the need for tolerance, pluralism and peaceful coexistence in our future.

Brief factual quibble. Muhammadmed only achieved the unification of the Arabian peninsula before he died. His successors created the North Africa to South Asia empire referred to in the article.

Anyway, if the standard for removal from a "religion (/nation/society) of peace" is drawing the "most radically xenophobic doctrines to legitimize a vicious assault" against the Other, then there is no religion of peace. The article gives examples of Christian and Jewish extremism, both of which draw from the worst aspects of the two faiths. Jewish exclusivity, with the "chosen" people seen as superior, allows such abominations as the Crown Heights incident, where a Jewish ambulance picked up the Jewish victims of a car accident, but left the black victim lying in the street. Christianity's expansionist model, combined with its belief in the supercession of the Hebrew covenant, have justified its colonizing and imperializing tendencies, as well as an ongoing history of vicious anti-Semitism that has not wholly been eradicated. We could play the same game with pretty much any sizable group (the American belief in the manifest destiny and white superiority allowed for the subjugation and near genocide of Native Americans, as well as hundreds of years of racial subordination). This does not mean that every group is evil or a religion of war. It means that all faiths and peoples have elements in their past which, if elevated to the primary, will justify the most horrific of atrocities.

I believe the phrase Christians use is to not focus on the speck in your neighbors eye when you have a log in your own?

At the moment, Islam is regrettably on an extremist kick. This needs to be fought, but to say that it is the Platonic form of Islam is a distortion, just as much as saying that the brutalities of Christian imperialism represents the essential Christianity.

In other words, I join a fight against noxious ideas--one major one which is, at the moment, being held by many Muslims. But I would in an instant reconcile with any Muslim who rejects the way of terror, just as I would with any Christian who rejects the way of anti-Semitism.

My Readers Rock

In the comments to my latest knock of "Judeo-Christian", NYCModerate was kind enough to say the following:

I was pointed here by The Moderate Voice and while I have nothing intelligent to add, I did want to say that I found both the original post and the comments of the highest quality. Far too often, a thread with more than 3 comments turns into a flame war over even the tiniest disagreement. This discussion of an already interesting idea was civil and added a lot to the original post. Thank you all for that.

I won't comment about the quality of my own postings, but I'll concur entirely that my readers have been universally topnotch. I've been blessed to have a core contingent of commenters who tend to disagree with me, but are respectful and thoughtful, which makes for an excellent blogging experience. So, to my first two big readers, Big Guy Rocks (who regrettably has stopped blogging), and Random Scrub (who doesn't blog nearly enough), thanks for reading when nobody else was--seeing your comments back when my readership consisted solely of my immediate family was a huge thrill. I haven't talked much on Foreign Policy in a while, so Marc Schulman hasn't been around lately, but he was the spark point for one of my favorite posts ever: State-Centrism and The War on Terror. Mark Olsen of Pseudo-Polymath has been terrifically loyal, perhaps my most prolific commenter and linker, and has done wonders in forcing me to flesh out the "anti-Judeo-Christian" argument I love to make--thanks for that. N.S.T. is a friend from home--though you might not know it from some of the exchanges we've had--and unlike all my other "friends" who got bored with the blog rather quickly, he's stuck with it. As for the folks who don't come by as often but I still recognize, like Blue Eyez and Isaac, the comments I get from you have always been to superb. Keep it up--and don't be strangers! And finally, to the trolls and spammers--I've yet to see you around, so thanks for finding other blogs to patronize.

You're the guys who make it worthwhile. Thanks so much for reading, and I look forward to the posts to come.

Gee, I Didn't Realize I Was So Despised

The Radical Centrist asserts, and Ambivablog/The Yellow Line concurs, that centrists take more flack from the left than the right. Is this true? I'm not so sure.

I can only operate off personal narrative here. I'm a centrist-liberal, who resides in a very liberal locale (Bethesda, MD), and attends a very liberal school (Carleton College). The particular centrist positions I take are that I support the war in Iraq, straddle the fence on abortion, and generally believe in an aggressive and hawkish foreign policy (albeit one that stressed democracy). So basically, its not like I'm lacking in ways to piss hardcore liberals off. Yet I've never really felt uncomfortable amongst my liberal peers for holding these positions. Sometimes after mentioning them, I have to inform them that I actually am a Democrat, just a moderate one. But I've yet to meet the reflexive hostility that seems to be what people are talking about when they refer to what the stalwarts supposedly feel about the moderates (for example, I've never been called a traitor).

I think what is obviously true is that the left is more tolerant of rightwingers turned centrist (for example, Andrew Sullivan and John Cole) than they are of liberals who appear to be drifting off to the center (for example, the DLC). For example, I've seen The Daily Kos link approvingly to John Cole on several occasions, while bashing the DLC on, well, more than several occasions (despite the fact that the DLC is probably more liberal than Mr. Cole). The reverse is also true--Republican partisans are far more kind supposed moderate Democrats than they are to moderate Republicans. This makes perfect sense, after all: we like people who seem to be moving in our direction, and are upset with those who appear to be moving away from us. But I don't see any partisan slant to the phenomena.

As a general matter, I'd think that moderates are more welcome in the Democratic party than in the Republican party, and I think that bipartisanship is slightly more common their as well (though in today's environment, it's rare anywhere). For example, while I've seen bona fide liberals praising Bush (for specific policies, of course) on several occasions, I have yet to see any comparable praise from a mainline Republican commentator of a mainline Democrat. The moderate wing of the Democratic party is far more powerful than it's equivalent within the Republicans (DLC stomps Rockefeller Republicans). How else do you explain pro-life Harry Reid (and his predecessor for that matter, Tom Daschle)? Neither of them are all that liberal, objectively. Nancy Pelosi certainly is, but Steny Hoyer isn't. What you have for Democrats seems to be a fair mix between the left and center of the party. The big Republicans in congress, by contrast, are Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Rick Santorum, Jon Kyl, and Bill Frist--all toward the right edge of the party, and only Frist even sporadically nodding to the center. Moderate Republicans never even see the light of leadership day--remember how Arlen Specter was humiliated before finally getting the chairmanship of the Judiciary committee (which is just because of seniority, anyway)? The other moderates, like Collins, Snowe, and Chaffee are completely out of the loop (though again, only Voinovich has been labeled a traitor) Finally, I think it is telling that more moderate Republicans appear to be bolting the party (even if only temporarily) than moderate Democrats doing the same. Sullivan, Daniel Drezner, libertarian Jacob Levy, among others, all voted for John Kerry in 2004. Senator Lincoln Chafee refused to say he was voting for Bush, and of course, Jim Jeffords defected precisely because he was fed up with being abused by his own party. With the exception of Zell Miller I have seen almost no similar crossovers from the Democratic party.

So while I think that there is a lot of illwill at the extremes to the center on both sides, I think it is descriptively inaccurate to say that it resides on the left. At best, it is an equal opportunity offender, and at worst it is a problem more acute on the right.

Things That Have Happened Today

Kind of a lazy day for me today. Felt sick this morning, so I took off work. Here a just a few of the fascinating happenstances that have already occurred at the time of this writing.

-The Rodrigo Chronicles, by Richard Delgado, came in the mail. I look forward to yet another chance to bury myself in blissful leftist theory.

-The Washington Post reports that one of my favorite players, Scott Niedermayer, has left the New Jersey Devils (namesake of this blog's URL--David Schraub's a Devil) to play for the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. I was depressed for a moment, but then a weird sense of elation came over me. After a moment of confusion, I figured it out--he'll play for the Mighty Ducks, as opposed to being locked out. Man, it's good to have hockey back.

-After resisting for several months, I finally gave in and bought the "Firefly" DVD boxed set after Daniel Drezner made it his "general interest book of the month." Prior to this, I had never once taken up one of Drezner's "reading" suggestions, despite his status as one of my favorite bloggers. So while I'll continue to ignore his viewpoints on economic policy, I'm all ears when it comes to science-fiction. I'm sure he's thrilled.

-Meanwhile, Drezner got profiled on Normblog. His most disliked personal fault is dogmatism. Hey, me too! Wow, I feel like a stalker.

-According to Sitemeter, I continue to get a steady stream of visitors reading my seminal article, How to Legally Hire a Prostitute, with one person labeling it "just brilliant." I feel bad, because Kaimi Wenger really deserves the credit.

-My younger brother just got home from camp, where he won the prestigious "Mando" award for the next Tom Cruise. I'm so proud.

Further bulletins as events warrant.

How Did I Become a Christian All of the Sudden?

Dennis Prager is at it again. This time, his construction of "Judeo-Christian" values leads him to attack "transgendered" persons, by which he means cross-dressers and other persons who act in a manner contrary to how their gender "should" behave (oddly, he specifically divides out transsexuals, IE, those who've actually gotten a sex change operation. These people he thinks are fine). Feministe does a great job of taking down this particular post, so I'll just concentrate on the generic problems with Mr. Prager's casual combination of "Judeo-Christian."

Mr. Prager is not new to the fallacious grouping of "Judeo" and "Christian". Indeed, his political discourse is predicated on the inseparability of "Judeo-Christian" as a term, and the proposition that the moral values that grow out of said union are critical to the American way of life. As I Jew, I've always found that position objectionable, because I think it cheapens the Jewish experience and perspective to falsely pretend it can be grouped as "just another" form of Christianity. Indeed, a key trait of appeals to the "Judeo-Christian" tradition is that it is almost always a Christian belief being asserted--occasionally, one in which Jews and Christians agree, but not always. Even where the two religions take fundamentally opposite positions, like on abortion (Judaism being traditionally pro-choice, Christianity being traditionally pro-life), that does not stop speakers from asserting that Judeo-Christian ethics mandate the "pro-life" position (IE, mandate the Christian belief as true and the Jewish one as false). Thus we get such peculiarities as this:

With the Judeo-Christian worldview, the unborn is believed to be a special creation by God. This individual is created in His image and has inherent worth and dignity. Worth is not based upon genetic qualities, but on the statements and actions of God. To abort would be to destroy something that God claims has worth. You would be in conflict with the word of God, claiming to be smarter than His wisdom. Thus, abortion is dangerous in the Judeo-Christian view.

What's all the more troubling (and emblematic of how "Judeo-Christian" is nearly exclusively "Christian") is how the terms "Christian" and "Judeo-Christian" are used nearly interchangeably. The author in this piece, a University of Pennsylvania Professor, stated at the start that his goal was to "contrast the Naturalist worldview with the Christian worldview" regarding genetic testing. Apparently "Judeo-Christian" is a subset (if not the synonym) of Christian, not, as would seem logical, the other way around. The subtext is that within the broad category of "Christian", we have our several groups--Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and oh yeah, those whack second cousins, the Jews. Eventually, they'll come around, but in the mean time we'll humor/kill/slander/absorb them. The choice is different, but the metatheory remains the same: Judaism, as an independent religion with an independent tradition, ceases to exist.

Furthermore, since "Judeo-Christian" is blatantly a constructed category, it is particularly vulnerable to being pigeon-holed to fit particular political agendas (such as Mr. Prager's). Consider the following passage:

[The general opposition to combining what God made separate] helps to explain one of the least known and most enigmatic laws of the Torah, the ban on wearing linen and wool together in the same piece of clothing (sha'atnez). Linen represents plant life, and wool represents animal life. The two are distinct realms in God's creation.

And that is why the Torah bans men from wearing women's clothing.

Now, considering that Mr. Prager has yet to write an article asserting that society can/should ban clothing made of combined fabrics, what we have hear is Mr. Prager ignoring what the Torah says while elevating what it doesn't say to divine status. I, for one, will give the Torah's text the higher weight, and give Mr. Prager's "interpretation" as much as I'd give to any other interpretation of Jewish law that is not Halakah and does not command the respect of even a significant portion of the Jewish community--very little (FYI: Interpretations of Jewish law are generally considered "right" or "wrong" based on the view of the majority of the religious community. Minority perspectives are considered equally holy to the majority, though--after all, the minority may one day become the majority. In certain cases, both minority and majority views can be considered "legitimate" for the purposes of law, although such cases are rare. See Suzanne Last Stone, In Pursuit of the Counter-Text: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model In Contemporary American Legal Theory, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 813, 838-39 (1993).).

At root, Jews and Christians have different worldviews. That's why even religious Jews have tended to be more liberal than religious Christians. That's why Jews and Christians continue to have significant theological differences. That's why they're different religions. Although Mr. Prager is an exception, generally it is Christians who talk of "Judeo-Christian" traditions, and Jews who object. This makes perfect sense. For Christians, adding "Judeo" or other similar terms of inclusiveness ("people of faith") turns what would be an overt display of parochialism into a defense of common values. No longer trying to promote Christianity to the detriment of other faiths, the implication is that these Christian groups are fighting for everybody (regardless of whether the other religions want to join the cause or not). For Jews, by contrast, being grouped in with Christians means being drafted to fight wars they never signed on to, and often ones where the objective is one positively detrimental to Judaism (for example, prayer in school). Worse yet, since Christians, being the dominant religion, have far more access to media and other forums to assert their message than Jews have to disassociate from it, the risk is very high that Jews will become seen as popular accomplices to unjust policies. Having been "spoken for," nobody will bother to hear them actually speak.

The false incorporation of "Jew" as a form of "Christian" can only come to negative consequences. Christians should feel free to advocate their positions and beliefs. But Jews shouldn't have to be dragged into it--and they certainly shouldn't commit sectacide (is that a word?) by pretending that their issues and our issues are one and the same.

Yup, That's Me

So I'm looking at my Blogpulse profile, and I see a list of "keywords" that they see often in my writing. So, here they are:

defending, abstract, homosexuals, remedy, blogosphere, centrist, overt, biased, perkins, principled

It's funny, because I really think that would actually give a pretty good overview of both who I am and how I write. We have topics that I blog on relatively frequently (homosexuality, Tony Perkins, the mechanics of the blogosphere), phrases I know I overuse (overt, abstract), and characteristics and actions I find important (defending, remedy, centrist, biased, principled). I wonder though, would I appear to be conservative from this description? Aside from the centrism part, of course (which gives away the whole game), I think it is conservatives more than liberals who talk about bias and "defending principles" (and not knowing anything else, the casual reader could see that list and think that I like Tony Perkins' ideas on homosexuals). It's funny, because according to my friends I "look" like a conservative (don't ask).

So aside from the possible conservatism, that's me in a Blogpulse nutshell!

We Want Wilkie

I was a big WWII buff when I was younger. I thought it was just the coolest subject in the world. I read articles and books like it was nobody's business, could rattle off generals and battles like the back of my hand. The centerpiece of my collection of WWII material was a giant LIFE coffeetable book, full of masterful pictures and writings on the whole war.

One thing I remembered from it was a particular description of Wendell Wilkie, the 1940 Republican candidate for President. Wilkie is a relatively forgotten figure in American history--indeed, if not for this passage, I probably would have forgotten him too. I don't remember the exact wording, but the book noted something about how President Roosevelt had to take some unpopular action to gird America against the Nazis, that, if he wanted to Wilkie could have made enormous political hay out of. But "Wilkie saw eye-to-eye with President" on the Nazi threat, and supported him the whole way.

At the time, I wasn't very politically inclined, so my thought was pretty much "that was nice of him," and I moved on. But as I grew older, Wilkie's decision to forgo political gain for the good of the country became more and more amazing. Let's put all the cards on the table here--had Wilkie pushed Roosevelt on this issue, he probably could have won the election in 1940. But the cost would have been the possibly fatal weakening of Great Britain, a decisive Nazi advantage, and oh, probably the murder of several million more Jews.

How many politicians today would make that choice? Maybe if they knew the stakes I laid out, they'd do it. But Wilkie chose his path without the benefit of hindsight.

What I want is for politicians able to transcend politics, to steel themselves against popular pressures and stand for what is right and necessary, to say "no" to advisors salivating over an incumbent or challenger forced into a tough but necessary position, to, in short, behave like a statesman and not like a machine boss. I noted a few before election 2004--although obviously the stakes in their case were much smaller. But they are the inspiring exception to a wholly depressing rule.

So while I wait for the next generation of Wilkie's, I direct you this amazing Washington Monthly article on the courage and fortitude of Mr. Wilkie. Truly, this man was an American hero.

How To Legally Hire a Prostitute

Kaimi Wenger gives us this indispensable information. Further discussion by Christine Hurt at The Conglomerate, as well as elsewhere on PrawfsBlawg.

The story which sparked the discussion can be found here. It comes in the wake of a New York court ruling that seeks to differentiate prostitution (basically, paying someone to have sex with you) and pornography (paying someone to have sex with someone else on film). Our noble pursuers of truth and wisdom wisely have noted that it would be incredibly easy to take your run-of-the-mill contract with a prostitute (illegal) and turn it into a pornography deal (legal). All you'd need to do, in theory, is have a buddy solicit the deal ("hey, want to be in a movie with my friend for $X dollars?") and record it somehow. Easy as pie.

And for the record, I agree with Ms. Hurt. While cases like this certainly provide ammo for feminist cases against legal pornography, I think it does just as good a job showing the irrationality of prostitution laws. To wit:

To continue to say that two people having sex with money changing hands is something to be criminalized but fifty people having sex in one room is freedom of association is quite a stretch. Not to mention two or three or four people on salary having sex in front of a camera is a first amendment right.

God Bless America!

On The Way To Lunch, I Thought of a Rant

I was walking to lunch today in downtown DC over to the California Tortilla near Chinatown (I had a coupon...mmm...). Anyway, as I'm walking, I pass a building which, for whatever reason, caught my eye. I look at the door frame, and inscribed in stone I can make out these words:

"Faith, Family, Freedom."

With a chill, I realized I was standing in front of the office of my absolute least favorite group in American politics: The Family Research Council.

Tried to convince friends that the FRC was, to quote "Office Space", emblematic of "all that is soulless and wrong." I don't think I succeeded.

But seriously, I honestly believe that the FRC does a stunning job of embodying all of the worst aspects of American political life.

Start with the Orwellian motto: "Faith, family and freedom." Who are they kidding? They defend one faith (Christianity) while displaying no sensitivity (and barely playing lip service to respect) for anybody else's. What of my faith? It has no place in the supremacist worldview of the FRC. Family? The only time I've seen the FRC get involved with family is when they try and break them up. The FRC is fans of certain families to be sure--middle class heterosexual conservative Christian ones. But the vast majority of the FRC's agenda is spent trying to wreak as much havoc upon homosexual families as they possibly can. Worse, once the issue gets beyond heterosexual hegemony, the FRC barely even pretends to support "the family." They've supported economic policies blatantly slanted toward the richest Americans--neglecting the families most in need of aid. They urge that congress weaken Social Security--a safety net for millions of vulnerable retirees. Basically, they are hacks for the right wing of the Republican party--regardless of whether they're "helping families" or delivering massive amounts of largesse to the corporate trough. And freedom is the most ludicrous claim of all. The FRC is a posterchild for government intervention in every facet of American life. From censoring television and radio, to making the most intimate of family decisions subject to state stamps of approval, to the interjection of divisive messages of sectarianism in our public affairs, the FRC has consistently come down against liberty and in favor of a heavily ideological and activist state. Aside from their wildly overblown claims about lost religious liberty (liberty appears to be defined as "the liberty of state officials to indoctrinate captive audiences on religious concerns," since there has yet to be a single case where citizens could not continue to believe and practice as they wish in the private sphere), I have yet to see the FRC ever assert an interest in leaving a matter free from government meddling. So to start, they're misrepresentative.

Second, they are masters of the politics of the soundbite. The FRC appears to find rational argumentation to be a quaint relic of bygone eras. Instead, they appeal to fears and prejudices, throwing ad hominems and non sequitors together with reckless abandon. To cite just one example, they love to say "like counterfeit money, counterfeit marriage will reduce the value of the real thing." Presumably, they are oblivious to the blindingly obvious fact that whereas money gets its value from scarcity, marriage gets its value from being a shared and communal experience by which two persons bound together in the eyes of each other and the surrounding society. But perhaps, I'm wrong, and the FRC's ideal marital model is one where marriage is a commodity viciously competed over, with some people "getting it" and others not, and the ultimate objective, of course, is to accumulate as much as possible ("hey buddy! Got only one marriage? Well I'm pulling in six!").

Third, the FRC seems to be philosophically opposed to consensus. They go out of their way to pick fights with Democrats and categorically reject overtures from liberals to work toward common goals. The FRC was completely dismissive of Hillary Clinton's plea for pro-life and pro-choice activists to work together to reduce abortions, despite this being an issue that everyone appears to agree on. Instead, the FRC seems enamored with the constant attack politics currently in the vogue with congressional leaders--which may explain why they are proud defenders of that most Christian of Congressmen: Tom DeLay.

Fourth and finally (I could go on, but y'all deserve a break), they are partisan hacks, pure and simple. This isn't just a case of me and them disagreeing on particular policy positions--though I do, as it so happens, find their desire to (among other things) marginalize my religion and subjugate homosexuals to be repugnant. No, what bothers me is that they seem completely unconcerned with maintaining the principles they claim to uphold. They have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the farthest right reaches of the GOP--DeLay says jump, they say how high. Occasionally they will critique Republicans from the right, but they will never, ever say "okay, this time you went too far." Even if the issue has absolutely nothing to do with "faith, family or freedom," they'll still reflexively back whatever the GOP talking point is. Misleading intelligence about Iraq? Liberals want to coddle terrorists. Tom DeLay is the most corrupt politician since S&L? Liberal smear campaign. And when it is the issue they care about, consistency is the first casualty of their flippant and faux-principled statements. Massachusetts Supreme Court refuses to defer to democratic branches and allows citizens the right to make private sexual decisions? Let the legislature decide! Legislature decides to extend equal benefits to gay and straight unions? Let the people decide! The people of San Francisco (via a mayor who had overwhelming popular support on the issue) decide to allow gay marriages? To the Courts, quick!

To state what should be obvious by this point--I detest this group and everything they "stand" for.

Terror Is Terror Is...Terror?

While I'm on the subject of disgusting responses to terrorism, I can add Judy Shalom, wife of the Israeli Foreign Minister, who had this message for London terror victims:

Judy [Shalom, wife of the Israeli foreign minister], speaking on a television show about the recent bombings in London: "As long as I hold no official position, I can say it's not all bad for the English to find out what it's like."

Your "official" position at the moment, Ms. Shalom, is that of human being. A position which you apparently are utterly unqualified for. While I suppose in theory there are "benefits," per se, of having other people experience the death and destruction Israel has to deal with on a daily basis, it defies any basic moral standard to ask other people to under go death and mutilation to increase one's geopolitical status. I condemn this in the fullest of terms.

While I'm on the subject of condemnations (and risking the charge that I won't condemn an Israeli without an accompanying condemnation of anti-Israeli forces--a charge I admit this opens me to and can only say is, at least in this case, a pure coincidence of what I happened to be reading), I also think that this Guardian article is textbook in its anti-Israel bias. This is the passage that really gets my ire up:

Israel has repeatedly demanded that other governments recognise Palestinian attacks as part of an international Islamist campaign against western democracy, therefore implicitly not connected to its own actions in the occupied territories.

Man oh man, where to begin? Of the myriad problems I could find in this statement, I can distill it down to a simple observation that appears to elude Guardian writers: Israel is asking for moral equivalency between acts of terrorism against itself, and acts of terrorism against other western democracy--and correspondingly, that commentators not equate the defense of its national sovereignty against these acts with the acts themselves. This divides the issue from its actions in the territories, of course, but not in the sense of making them "not connected." Rather, it means that we evaluate the actions on similar moral scales. To assert that acts of terrorism against Israel are "not connected" to the happenings in the territories is asinine and, to my knowledge, has never been asserted by anyone. Similarly, even an Iraq war supporter such as myself (and indeed, anyone with half a brain) would agree that acts of terror against American troops in Iraq are "connected" to the invasion. Some of us (myself included) might also agree that some of these attacks are related to moral and strategic failings of the US in the region--for example, tepid support of true democratization, failure to stabilize the country in the aftermath of the invasion, or torture at Abu Gharib (and some Israelis would make similar concessions that missteps in the territories have at least partial blame for some terrorist attacks). At the same time, I'm skeptical that if we left Iraq, all terror against the US would end (after all, 9/11 happened with nary a US foot on Iraqi soil), and similarly, a basic glance at Palestinian terror organizations demonstrates that they will continue their assault on Israel regardless of whether or not Jews continue to live in "their" lands. Furthermore, even though I do feel that these "connections" between our(/Israeli) actions and terror against us(/Israel) are real, what I reject is that this in any way establishes the moral framework by which our mistakes, missteps, and moral failings are rendering equal to their policy of deliberate murder. It is that framework, adopted by the Vatican in it's vile response to anti-Israel terror and often taken by anti-Israel forces in the media (such as the Guardian) that I find unconscionable.

Shame.

Terror is terror, regardless of where it happens. And terror is terror, not whatever military action we feel like objecting to on a given day. There is equal wrong in treating unlikes alike as in treating likes unalike.

Must-See TV

UPDATE: 8/1 @ 7:40 PM
Jesus' first stop after the return:

GRAHAM: My hope is in the lord, Jesus Christ. And guess what, Bill? He's going to come back one day. And the Bible says — listen, here's...

O'REILLY: I hope he comes on "The Factor."

Somehow I think he'll have better things to do.
H/T: Is That Legal?

UPDATE: It occurs to me that would really would be great would be The Apprentice: Jesus Edition, with fifteen or so televangelists competing to sit on Jesus' right hand. Each day, another televangelist is "kicked off," by which I mean sent to eternal damnation. Christ could come up with a witty catch-phrase to, er, dismiss them, or alternatively they could just fall through a trap door into flames (ala Dr. Evil). Then finally, on the last show, the "winner" gets to--join his buddies at the eternal barbecue. Because I really dislike televangelists.

Yeah, I'd watch that.

Just Your Typical Rough & Tumble Politics

Egypt's fledgling Democracy gets off to a great start.

Recasting "The Lorax"; Or, The Triumph of the Crits

Todd Zywicki points us to a property-rights reinterpretation of Dr. Seuss' classic environmental, er, tract, "The Lorax."

I repost it in full, only because you need to read all of it to understand the point I'm making (and, given my own experience with reading assignments in High School, I don't trust you folks to actually do it yourselves!):

Dr. Seuss' story of the Lorax is an environmental classic (as is the television version that I've just seen). The conventional interpretation is that it's a tale of market-driven environmental ruin. The greedy Once-ler ignores the Lorax's warnings of environmental ruin as he turns truffula trees into thneeds (for a thneed, after all, is a thing that everyone needs!). As the truffula trees disappear the animals run off in fear, smog fills up the air yet the Once-ler doesn't care. Eventually the Once-ler cuts the last truffula down, and his entire corporate empire folds up and leaves town.

Environmentalists love to present this as a parable of modern industry's exploitation of the natural world. The relentless pursuit of profit leads to environmental -- and economic -- ruin. When the last truffula falls, so does the natural base for the Once-ler's wealth. And unless humans learn to care for the natural environment, and control industrial development, we will produce ecological devastation. But is this the best interpretation?

Paul Feine of the Institute for Humane Studies suggests the Lorax is subject to alternative interpretations. Viewing the tale of the Lorax through an institutional lens, ruin is not the result of corporate greed, but a lack of institutions. The truffula trees grow in an unowned commons. (The Lorax may speak for the trees, but he does not own them.) The Once-ler has no incentive to conserve the truffula trees for, as he notes to himself, if he doesn't cut them down someone else will. He's responding to the incentives created by a lack of property rights in the trees, and the inevitable tragedy results. Had the Once-ler owned the trees, his incentives would have been quite different -- and he would likely have acted accordingly -- even if he remained dismissive of the Lorax's environmental concerns.

The story ends with the Once-ler giving a young boy the last truffula seed. He tells him to plant it and treat it with care, and then maybe the Lorax will come back from there. The traditional interpretation is simply that we must all care more for the environment. If we only control corporate greed we can prevent environmental ruin. But perhaps it means something else. Perhaps the lesson is that this boy should plant his truffula trees, and act as their steward. Perhaps giving the boy the last seed is an act of transferring the truffula from the open-access commons to private stewardship. Indeed, the final image -- the ring of stones labeled with the word "unless" -- could well suggest that enclosure, and the creation of property rights to protect natural resources, is necessary for the Lorax to ever return.

Now I am not suggesting for a moment that this is the interpretation Dr. Seuss intended. Yet the Lorax, like any text, is open to multiple interpretations -- and this institutional interpretation is certainly compatible with the text. As is, perhaps, another interpretation in which the Lorax is himself an owner whose property rights are ignored by an unaccountable corporation. Either way, the Lorax is easily seen a story about property rights -- or the lack thereof -- and the inevitable environmental consequences of poor institutions. Something to think about the next time you hear the Lorax mentioned in an environmental policy debate.

So--let's break this down to the roots. A story that has a dominant, superficial message (corporate greed leads to environmental destruction), and, as the critic admits, probably was intended to forward precisely that message, still contains within in it traces of other meanings which subvert and undermine the primary interpretation and the accompanying ideology.

If this sounds familiar, that's because this is precisely how post-modern literary critics make their living. Yet here, we have a conservative blogger using the same method to make a conservative argument (replacing a traditional liberal environmentalist model with a conservative one emphasizing property rights).

I've registered my own support for this type of method before--but that shouldn't be surprising, since I'm a liberal. What is interesting is seeing how conservatives have adapted this style in their own arguments, probably without realizing its roots. Another example is conservative blogger Steve Bainbridge defending under "Just War" theories the destruction of Alderaan (that's right, we're talking Star Wars. For another "neo-imperialist" argument by a prominent conservative, see here in The Weekly Standard). In another post, which unfortunately points to a broken link, Bainbridge notes that just because they wear black, doesn't make them evil. The point is that the imagery of Star Wars is clearly designed to point the viewer to certain conclusions (sometimes overtly--who names their own ships and installations "Death Star," "Executor," "Tyrant," etc.?), but look underneath the surface and the meaning isn't inevitable (despite the clear intention of the author). This parallels almost exactly the indeterminacy theories forwarded by much of the academic left.

What's funny is that conservatives claim to loathe these theories (see, for just one example, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)). Indeed, Bainbridge himself has called it "bogus." Yet, here he is, engaging in precisely the critical endeavor he claims to abhor. What gives?

Other parts of the critical movement are rapidly making themselves known in conservative circles as well. Storytelling scholarship, despite often coming under criticism, is used by virtually all members of the political spectrum (as Richard Delgado puts it: "who has not run into the conservative or anti-PC detractor who begins by recounting: 'I know a story . . . .' and then tells of a mythical professor who was so hounded by PC fanatics that he hung up his coffee cup and retired" [Richard Delgado, Rodrigo's Book of Manners: How to Conduct a Conversation on Race -- Standing, Imperial Scholarship, and Beyond (Reviewing "BEYOND ALL REASON: THE RADICAL ASSAULT ON TRUTH IN AMERICAN LAW" by Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry), 86 GEO. L.J. 1051, 1072 (1998)]). In an article published in a campus political journal, I noted how conservative arguments for ideological diversity on campus mirror almost exactly liberal arguments for racial diversity--and how the responses of both "embattled minorities" is very similar: Both political minorities and racial minorities tend to separate themselves out from the rest of campus, form groups specifically designed to advocate and protect their interests as well as offering a safe space for members to congregate, and advocate vociferously to defend encroachments on their dignity while at the same time trying to avoid the backlash that is concurrent with being seen as a "pushy minority." Indeed, conservatives seem awfully comfortable with critical theory--aside from the fact that they hate it.

Although part of me does rebel about such a lovely story as The Lorax being co-opted to the conservative cause, I am far more pleased to see a philosophy I find important and compelling being adopted across ideological divides. Indeed, while I expect to hear protests and assaults on post-modernism for years to come, judging by what conservatives are saying, the Crits have already won.

Now I Am Getting a Touch Angry

I was not one of those persons who was ready to jump on the new Pope as soon as he was elected. Indeed, I was even a bit excited, and chided those who immediately tried to box the new Pope as any sort of ideologue.

But my patience is waning.

In a recent speech, Pope Benedict specifically condemned terrorist attacks in Britain, Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, neglecting the terror attacks against Israel in Netanya (not that it should matter, but Netanya is not in the West Bank or Gaza Strip). The omission was bad enough--the Holy See has enough credibility problems with Jews that it doesn't need to make things worse by refusing to condemn murder.

But the incredibly, the reason given for Israel's omission was even worse than the omission itself. Namely:

It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation," a statement from the Vatican press office said Thursday night, "and (that is) for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law."

"It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence," said the statement, which had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See.

I concur wholeheartedly with the reaction of Andrew Sullivan's guest-blogger:

Just so I understand, the reactions of Egypt, Britain, Iraq and Turkey to terror attacks have always been compatible with the rules of international law ?! Therefore, terror attacks against innocents living in those countries are wrong. Terror attacks targeting citizens living in countries with imperfect records are not. I am wordless.

As am I. The Pope cannot get away with the murderous equivilancy of suicide bombings and legitimate self-defense and expect to have any credibility in the Jewish community. Israel may or may not be right in the particulars of how it responds to terror. But it certainly possible to condemn suicide bombings that deliberately target innocents without feeling compelled to condemn actions designed to deter these murders.

Don't See This Everyday

When's the last time you've seen a bona fide liberal blogger congratulate the Bush administration on anything? Kevin Drum even manages to keep the snark down to a minimum:

Sure, a lot of this is politically motivated, and I have little doubt that the planned spring withdrawal is being timed to coincide with next year's midterm elections — and probably being timed to avoid a manpower meltdown as well. But politics is part of life. A timetable for withdrawal that's linked to the political process and combined with pressure to protect minority and gender rights, is the best course of action regardless of the motivation. If the Bushies keep it up, kudos to them.

Of course, there are other cases where liberal bloggers have congratulated the Bushies for particular moves and policies. (See, for example, this Dean partisan lauded Bush for his Sudan policy). But it is still nice to see folks transcend partisan affiliation and say "I don't like the guy, but he's right here." Oddly enough, I like seeing this attribute even when I think the actor is wrong on what they're agreeing with (not that I'm saying I disagree with Drum--I obviously like more rights for minorities in Iraq and a strengthened political process; withdrawal is far sketchier though). I agree with Publius that this entirely irrational--why should I like to see Democrats both agree with Republicans AND be wrong about it? I really don't know. I guess polarization has gotten so tiresome that I'm happy to see any cross-aisle partnership, no matter what the cause. However, this is limited to rhetorical props only. Nothing is more infuriating than watching otherwise bickering politicians put aside their differences and unite around idiocy (can you say Bankruptcy Bill?). It's just a wasted opportunity.

While we're on the subject, I have seen almost no examples of the equivalent by conservative bloggers about liberal political figures. Some examples please, and barring that, a bit of parity, perhaps?

Will the Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up?

In the wake of Clinton's successful venture against GTA, Kevin Drum feels inclined to ask the following:

I do wonder, though, what she's up to. After she finishes her supposed "move to the center," which appears to consist of little more than a few harmless rhetorical flourishes, will she then produce some genuinely big ideas to base her national 2008 candidacy on? If so, what will they be? After more than a decade in the national spotlight, I still couldn't even begin to guess. When will the real Hillary emerge from her cocoon?

I will admit to some confusion. While The Washington Monthly is split both ways on whether Hillary can win the White House, I don't see why Drum thinks that Clinton's centrist drift is in anyway faked, and I certainly don't see it restricted to "a few harmless rhetorical flourishes."

Clinton's "common ground" speech, for example (delivered at NARAL no less), was a tremendously gutsy position to take. Perhaps more than any other issue, abortion has become divided into two sides completely convinced the other is evil. It's murderers versus misogynists. In this environment, any words suggesting compromise or reconciliation could create a brutal backlash amongst the left. This is true even in the presence of such obvious common ground like what Clinton pointed out, that nobody likes abortion, that most people think that society and/or government should take steps in some form to reduce the amount of abortions that occur. Indeed, the primary point of departure is on whether abortion should be criminalized (link: Bitch Ph.D)--and most pro-lifers, when pressed, are unwilling to go all out and say women who have abortions should be sent to prison as murderers. Political waters are most dangerous when there is clear grounds for consensus that people have consciously chosen to eschew. That suggests that positions and sentiments have become so entrenched as to border on irrational. Clinton's foray into the morass says much about character--it was not anything contrived.

It is true that in this (GTA) particular instance, Democrats have been relatively sanguine about Clinton's rightward shift. But it is simply wrong to suggest that on issues of substance, the base will applaud anything Hillary does simply because she's Hillary. It is tough to disregard your core base of support--especially when you're reaching out to a demographic group that has shown its distrust with you personally in the past. Most politicians don't have the guts to do it. Witness GWB's prostration before the Christian right on the Schiavo matter. If a just re-elected term limited president wildly popular with his rightwing base can't say no to them on issue of the most profound stupidity, when can he? Hillary's situation is no different--the base will certainly give her some slack, but not an infinite amount. Look at what happened when she called for a truce amongst warring factions within the Democratic party. As usual, the response was depressingly fratricidal all around (link: Balloon Juice)--showing that even folks with Clinton's rock star status are not immune to being burned when they defy the base.

Simply put, not only do I think Drum is wrong about the superficiality of Clinton's centrist move, I think it's politically damaging as well. Such a critique plays into the hands of GOPers who are trying to portray Clinton's move as pure politics (mostly because they can't disagree with the actual substance of what she is proposing). It's bad enough when they do it--but does our side have to join in too?

The Code is Law...Follow the Code

PrawfsBlawg links to an interesting article reviewing "Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus". It presents an interesting perspective on the academic freedom wars. While scathingly (and justifiably) critical of campus speech codes, he is also firmly committed to a multicultural education, one

that reflect[s] the simple and straightforward educational imperative out of which multiculturalism’s legitimate demands flow: We must study other peoples and places because we cannot understand humanity - our own included - without acquainting ourselves with the variety of ways of being human.

Although I have some sympathies to the goal, speech and conduct codes are suspect for several reasons. For one, there is no institutional competence or neutrality in resolving claims. Campuses adopt speech codes because they are committed to a particular political agenda. This very same committment, however, taints the very people (likely faculty members or administrations) who would be conducting the hearings. This can explain why many colleges have abhorrently low levels of procedural protection for the accused. Second, prevailing social environments on campus are very different than social realities in general. In normal society, prejudice and discrimination is pretty much limited to the traditional racist/sexist/heterosexist/anti-Semetic(/other minority religion) lines. In colleges, by contrast, this is supplemented (though by no means replaced) by feelings of hostility towards conservatives and religious persons (especially Christians). Most colleges have not acknowledged this fact, since it is their very core structures that help reify and enable this prejudice. However, given the reality of much "hate speech" cases (conservative student A expressing a "traditionalist" view of a certain group, to which B belongs), this critically wounds any hope of neutrality amongst the college. Finally, colleges have no institutional traditions suitable to resolving this dispute. Being a Professor is a polemical position. It is based off forwarding and defending particular positions. Unlike legal system, which has historically rooted practices which help guard against biased results (stare decisis, incrementalism, presumption of impartiality), colleges have no similar constraining traditions, making them even more vulnerable to the types of political bias I described above. Of course, panel members may feel a compulsion toward impartiality for other reasons--for example, a feeling of duty--but this is a far weaker foundation (for example, a professor could as easily feel a compulsion to see that the guilty are punished, or to assure that "justice is done").

UnBorkable, You Say?

Folks who've been defending nominee John Roberts have claimed that his affable personality and superb pedigree makes him "unBorkable", meaning that Democrats could not portray him into an evil hobgoblin and thus defeat his nomination. However, David Adnesik wondered when the term was used first.

The answer, he found out, was that it was first used in 1990...in reference to David Souter!

Hmm...I may like unBorkable judges...

For Once I Wish I Agreed With Alabama

Alabama apparently wants to make the punishment for sex offenders castration.

The good news: In retrospect, they now have come to the realization that it might be a wee bit unconstitutional.

The bad news: They may be wrong.

Proving that all idiotic history repeats itself, there are two major Supreme Court cases dealing with castration. The first is Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200 (1927)), perhaps Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s most infamous opinion, where he upheld Virginia's castration program for the feeble minded with the pithy "three generations of idiots are enough."

The second case was Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535 (1942)) In that case, the court overturned Oklahoma's castration law. However, it did so (and here's where it gets interesting) without overturning Bell. The ruling instead emphasis the Equal Protection deficiencies in Oklahoma's law:

Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination. Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. Oklahoma's line between larceny by fraud and embezzlement is determined, as we have noted, 'with reference to the time when the fraudulent intent to convert the property to the taker's own use' arises. We have not the slightest basis for inferring that that line has any significance in eugenics nor that the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses. In terms of fines and imprisonment the crimes of larceny and embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn. (316 U.S. at 541-42) (citations omitted)

In other words, the Court struck down the law because it irrationally distinguished between such crimes as Larceny and Embezzlement, one being punishable by castration, the other not. The court also noted that since castration obviously affected a fundamental right, "strict scrutiny" was the appropriate standard (Id., at 541). However, after Skinner, the eugenics movement began to fade, and no state was stupid enough to reenact a castration law (until now).

The question is, then, would a state law that mandated castration for sex offenders pass strict scrutiny (assuming Bell is still good law and castration is not per se unconstitutional)? I think one could make a compelling argument that it does. Sex offenders are a particular class of offenders whose "weapon," so to speak, is their genitalia and sex drive. The state could plausibly argue that depriving offenders of that "weapon" is no different than depriving felons of their right to bear arms. Indeed, in a sense the argument would make more sense in this case, since, to borrow from Frank Easterbrook, this compares "the right to bear arms, which is in the constitution, to the right to one's penis, which is not." There is, I believe, quite a bit of evidence that suggests that castration reduces the sex drive of human beings (no surprise there) and thus would be a valid hedge against recidivism. Ultimately, I think this is an argument that could be made.

I do not think that castration is sound policy, and think that Bell should be overturned. But as the jurisprudence stands now, I do not think Alabama's law is unconstitutional.

Would that I could agree with them this time.

A Public Defender and PrawfsBlawg have more, and thanks to Objective Justice's BlawgReview for the original tip.

Past Mistakes

This took guts.

President Clinton has apologized for his "personal failure" to not help stop the Rwandan genocide. Of course, nothing can absolve one of one's guilt respecting genocide. Clinton's actions (or rather, inactions) were and remain unforgivable. Still, this was the right thing to do. And hopefully (but doubtfully), it will be the last time an American President has to ask victims of homicidal mania for similar absolution.

Now, if only Kofi Annan followed suit...